Address Resolution
Joel Halpern <jmh@petunia.network.com> Mon, 19 November 1990 19:39 UTC
Received: from [137.192.1.9] by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29390;
19 Nov 90 14:39 EST
Received: from petunia.network.com by nsco.network.com (5.61/1.34)
id AA03212; Mon, 19 Nov 90 13:40:04 -0600
Received: by petunia.network.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA00921; Mon, 19 Nov 90 13:41:18 CST
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 13:41:18 CST
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@petunia.network.com>
Message-Id: <9011191941.AA00921@petunia.network.com>
To: frame-relay@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Address Resolution
Whether one uses PPP (with LQM negotiated off), or not, there is a question about address resolution. Several people have suggested that the multi-cast solutions are too expensive in bandwidth and excessive bits transmitted. This may well be true. However, I would sincerely hope that we are not going to insist on the full overhead of X.500 when we need to resolve an address? I would suggest that a server aimed specifically at the lower layer service, such as an ES-IS server as envisioned by ISO, might be a more effective solution to this problem. I personally rather like the idea of a multi-cast address which such servers will listen to. Then a box will send to that address when it starts up, and not the responses. Then it can use those address for address resolution requests. This should simplify customer configuration. Joel M. Halpern jmh@nsco.network.com Network Systems Corporation
- Address Resolution Joel Halpern